A traitor to America?

What is the point to this? That our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Or, hypocrites?

Obviously our country has taken a step backwards since its founding and we've forgotten our ideals and values.

What is the point to this? That our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Or, hypocrites?

The point is that this country was founded on certain ideals and rules - and that we don't get to pick and choose who they apply to based on our political whims.

ALL people should have legal rights and due process.

Not just those who are citizens, not those we don't have issues with, EVERYONE!

Or to put it in bumper sticker terms:

"What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular!"

What is the point to this? That our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Or, hypocrites?

The point is that Liz Cheney, and the Keep America Safe group, and Rush, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and a bunch of other talking heads want anyone who defended terrorists in court to be blackballed from ever working again. They are running ads naming DOJ employees who represented Gitmo detainees, demanding they be fired. She calls them " lawyers who voluntarily flocked to Guantanamo to take up the cause of the terrorists", as though they were like the college kids who went to Cuba to work the sugar fields under Castro.

Meanwhile, conservative Republicans with brains who actually believe in our laws are saying she is going too far.

She clearly needs to re-read the history of the Adams incident. It was a shining example of a man who had principles standing against public sentiment in his belief that laws provide justice.

The point is that Liz Cheney, and the Keep America Safe group, and Rush, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and a bunch of other talking heads want anyone who defended terrorists in court to be blackballed from ever working again. They are running ads naming DOJ employees who represented Gitmo detainees, demanding they be fired. She calls them " lawyers who voluntarily flocked to Guantanamo to take up the cause of the terrorists", as though they were like the college kids who went to Cuba to work the sugar fields under Castro.

Meanwhile, conservative Republicans with brains who actually believe in our laws are saying she is going too far.

She clearly needs to re-read the history of the Adams incident. It was a shining example of a man who had principles standing against public sentiment in his belief that laws provide justice.

Then I would guess Liz Cheney would include James Baker and his law firm in this group since they defended the the Saudi Arabian government in a lawsuit filed by the American families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks.

" Affidavits and copies of cancelled checks suggest that Saudi Arabian Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have funneled millions of dollars to assorted Islamic charities that U.S. officials and others suspect have covertly financed the operations of al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups."

The point is that this country was founded on certain ideals and rules - and that we don't get to pick and choose who they apply to based on our political whims.

ALL people should have legal rights and due process.

Not just those who are citizens, not those we don't have issues with, EVERYONE!

Thank you, Scooterbug.
I don't see how we can even consider doing otherwise if we value the rule of law and the constitution. It's a slippery slope to start down if we decide the rules don't apply because the crime is particularly heinous, or we decide we think some accused deserve less than others because of the crime, or their associations, or politics, or citizenship, or whatever. The whatever doesn't cut it for me. We play by the rules or they become worthless.

I might be missing something, but foreign nationals committing crimes here do indeed receive fair trials. In fact, we are probably the only country that grants a fair trial. If they cannot afford legal representation, we will appoint one to them for their fair trial.

I might be missing something, but foreign nationals committing crimes here do indeed receive fair trials. In fact, we are probably the only country that grants a fair trial. If they cannot afford legal representation, we will appoint one to them for their fair trial.

They do get fair trials, but I think Scooterbug was focusing on the fact that the American lawyers who have been representing the accused in these cases have been stigmatized and some political groups are demanding they be fired for representing terrorists. Its crazy!

They do get fair trials, but I think Scooterbug was focusing on the fact that the American lawyers who have been representing the accused in these cases have been stigmatized and some political groups are demanding they be fired for representing terrorists. Its crazy!

Well, those people are crazy for certain. Nicely stated, Douglas. Sometimes, the answer is just clear as mud, isn't it?

What is the point to this? That our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Or, hypocrites?

Neither. They were intellectual rebels and human beings with all the normal human being frailties.

Thank you, Scooterbug.
I don't see how we can even consider doing otherwise if we value the rule of law and the constitution. It's a slippery slope to start down if we decide the rules don't apply because the crime is particularly heinous, or we decide we think some accused deserve less than others because of the crime, or their associations, or politics, or citizenship, or whatever. The whatever doesn't cut it for me. We play by the rules or they become worthless.

Another issue is that if WE don't play by the rules, there is no reason for others to play by the rules when dealing with Americans.

I might be missing something, but foreign nationals committing crimes here do indeed receive fair trials. In fact, we are probably the only country that grants a fair trial. If they cannot afford legal representation, we will appoint one to them for their fair trial.

The legal rights of American citizens and the legal rights of others are 2 very different things in our legal system - I don't think that is fair - or wise!

They do get fair trials, but I think Scooterbug was focusing on the fact that the American lawyers who have been representing the accused in these cases have been stigmatized and some political groups are demanding they be fired for representing terrorists. Its crazy!

Yep - we give them lawyers and a fair trial and then noone can quibble w/ their sentences.

Let's face it - most of the people represented in court aren't exactly stellar human beings.

Thanks, Y'all! Was really confused with the original post as John Adams certainly did not betray this country. I have had discussions with lawyers regarding rights of non-citizens here as well as other issues regarding our Constitution from the recent past. If we waiver from the Constitution, we set ourselves up for disaster.

The terrorists deserve representation. As far as lawyers flocking to Guantanamo Bay to represent the terrorists, they should not be disbarred, but are they any different than the proverbial 'ambulance chasers,' of which we now have distinct laws against this type of solicitation.

Just a thought. Or, two.

Thanks, Y'all! Was really confused with the original post as John Adams certainly did not betray this country. I have had discussions with lawyers regarding rights of non-citizens here as well as other issues regarding our Constitution from the recent past. If we waiver from the Constitution, we set ourselves up for disaster.

The terrorists deserve representation. As far as lawyers flocking to Guantanamo Bay to represent the terrorists, they should not be disbarred, but are they any different than the proverbial 'ambulance chasers,' of which we now have distinct laws against this type of solicitation.

Just a thought. Or, two.

Yes they are different, they are volunteers offering their services pro bono.

Yes they are different, they are volunteers offering their services pro bono.

Wow. That's interesting. Pro bono for the terrorists? Self-serving, indeed. Most likely, this will backfire on them. I would just let these chips fall where they may. Because they will fall.

Wow. That's interesting. Pro bono for the terrorists? Self-serving, indeed. Most likely, this will backfire on them. I would just let these chips fall where they may. Because they will fall.

Using your logic, the free care a doctor might provide for those you call terrorists would also be self-serving.

Using your logic, the free care a doctor might provide for those you call terrorists would also be self-serving.

Why not simply ask me what my logic is regarding physicians instead making this assumption as to what you think my logic is or might be, poppy. Was the pro bono something mandated by the US Gov't or something the atty's chose for their resumes? Am I still missing something here? From what I am reading here in an earlier post, the attys flocked to the island to gain the terrorist as a client.

Have physicians flocked to render free care, then run ads stating as such? If you can't deduce from this post what my logic is, then please, just ask.

Why not simply ask me what my logic is regarding physicians instead making this assumption as to what you think my logic is or might be, poppy. Was the pro bono something mandated by the US Gov't or something the atty's chose for their resumes? Am I still missing something here? From what I am reading here in an earlier post, the attys flocked to the island to gain the terrorist as a client.

Have physicians flocked to render free care, then run ads stating as such? If you can't deduce from this post what my logic is, then please, just ask.

Damn if I know, you're the one who made an assumption and wrote "self-serving indeed".

Damn if I know, you're the one who made an assumption and wrote "self-serving indeed".

FTLOC! Sometimes these get so disjointed and ridiculous it is laughable. The words 'flock' and 'run ads' cause pause and yes my logic states that it is self-serving. If they were volunteers, would they have run the ads? Why would an atty run an ad like this, poppy? From I read in these posts, they 'voluntarily flocked.' From that verbiage, I can determine that this wasn't a situation of a Judge appointing an atty because the defendant could not afford his own representation. Trust me, I am not missing anything here. There could certainly be more to the story, however. But, thanks for the conversation.

Thanks, Y'all! Was really confused with the original post as John Adams certainly did not betray this country. I have had discussions with lawyers regarding rights of non-citizens here as well as other issues regarding our Constitution from the recent past. If we waiver from the Constitution, we set ourselves up for disaster.

The terrorists deserve representation. As far as lawyers flocking to Guantanamo Bay to represent the terrorists, they should not be disbarred, but are they any different than the proverbial 'ambulance chasers,' of which we now have distinct laws against this type of solicitation.

Just a thought. Or, two.

Yes big difference, ambulance chasers tend to be involved in civil cases in which there might be some criminal elements. I think terrorism is way beyond negligence or carelessness.:roll:

I've missed the ads of lawyers touting their terrorist defense offerings, perhaps you could link to one?

In fact I can't think of one attorney off the top of my head that rushed down to defend them. Can you, without googling, offer a name?

FTLOC! Sometimes these get so disjointed and ridiculous it is laughable. The words 'flock' and 'run ads' cause pause and yes my logic states that it is self-serving. If they were volunteers, would they have run the ads? Why would an atty run an ad like this, poppy? From I read in these posts, they 'voluntarily flocked.' From that verbiage, I can determine that this wasn't a situation of a Judge appointing an atty because the defendant could not afford his own representation. Trust me, I am not missing anything here. There could certainly be more to the story, however. But, thanks for the conversation.

Ok, you lost me here. What attorneys ran what ads? We may be on different pages or you have no idea what your talking about.

Ok, you lost me here. What attorneys ran what ads? We may be on different pages or you have no idea what your talking about.

I'm lost too. What ads are you talking about? I don't see any mention of ads? I thought this thread was about the way L. Cheney and Bill Kristol were attacking the DOJ attorneys...and the firestorm that caused in conservative, Republican circles, including Ken Starr calling them out....did I miss something?"

I'm lost too. What ads are you talking about? I don't see any mention of ads? I thought this thread was about the way L. Cheney and Bill Kristol were attacking the DOJ attorneys...and the firestorm that caused in conservative, Republican circles, including Ken Starr calling them out....did I miss something?"

I think we all must have because Lynnie writes "Trust me, I am not missing anything here."

The point is that Liz Cheney, and the Keep America Safe group, and Rush, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and a bunch of other talking heads want anyone who defended terrorists in court to be blackballed from ever working again. They are running ads naming DOJ employees who represented Gitmo detainees, demanding they be fired. She calls them " lawyers who voluntarily flocked to Guantanamo to take up the cause of the terrorists", as though they were like the college kids who went to Cuba to work the sugar fields under Castro.

Meanwhile, conservative Republicans with brains who actually believe in our laws are saying she is going too far.

She clearly needs to re-read the history of the Adams incident. It was a shining example of a man who had principles standing against public sentiment in his belief that laws provide justice.

Voluntarily flocked is here. Run ads was by those who are demanding they be fired. So sorry......I misread this the first time. My bad.

No, I have no links, no quotes, I have no idea which attys represented whom.....all I know is just what is here. I have not followed this situation. Kinda' glad I haven't.

Voluntarily flocked is here. Run ads was by those who are demanding they be fired. So sorry......I misread this the first time. My bad.

No, I have no links, no quotes, I have no idea which attys represented whom.....all I know is just what is here. I have not followed this situation. Kinda' glad I haven't.